Is self-defense the answer to gun violence? (5 letters)

Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, states, “The true response to the murders in Aurora and Newtown should be to encourage self-reliance in self-defense, not further reliance upon government.” In other words, he wants more “law-abiding citizens” carrying guns to defend themselves.

I am not naive enough to believe that gun laws will keep guns out of habitual criminals’ hands. I am more worried about “law-abiding” citizens who cross the line and use their gun because they are angry, depressed, mentally ill, inebriated, or use poor judgment as to a perceived threat to their safety, not to mention poor execution of their weapon’s discharge due to lack of training, or due to a stressful situation (like the Aurora theater shooting).

I understand Coloradans have the right to defend themselves, but let’s not regress to the Old West.

Paul Lillis, Littleton

This letter was published in the Jan. 27 edition.

Regarding proposed bans on high-capacity magazines, Dudley Brown states that “A magazine is no more dangerous than the cardboard box the ammunition is packaged in.” This is another flippant and meaningless analogy in the history of pointless gun analogies. It is flawed, misleading and absurd. The magazine itself is not dangerous, but a fully loaded, high-capacity magazine and weapon are far more dangerous and lethal than a 10-count magazine.

We know that Newtown shooter Adam Lanza and Aurora theater shooting suspect James Holmes took full advantage of large magazines. Larger magazines mean more killing, faster killing, fewer breaks for the gunman, and more death relative to injury, as proved by Lanza shooting his child victims many times over. Conversely, a cardboard box is a kids’ toy.

I support gun rights, but I reject irresponsible misrepresentations by gun-rights leaders.

Bradford Parker Worthington, Denver

This letter was published in the Jan. 27 edition.

Gun advocate Dudley Brown combines faulty reasoning with historical inaccuracy in his attempt to justify unrestricted gun ownership. High-capacity magazines enable shooters to fire rapidly and without pause for up to 100 rounds. This is hardly a cosmetic difference, as Brown claims, and comparing the magazines to automotive oil filters is simply absurd.

The British marched on Concord at the beginning of the American Revolution in order to seize the armory established there by the Continental Congress to stockpile weapons for the local militia. This is precisely the kind of gun ownership that the Second Amendment was eventually written to protect. To maintain, as Brown does, that the Founders meant instead to endorse armed insurrection against the very constitutional government they had fought so hard to establish is nonsensical. The Founders, including George Washington, regarded militias and their weapons as a defense against insurrection.

AJ Hill, Nederland

This letter was published in the Jan. 27 edition.

Dudley Brown’s article was divisive, instilled unwarranted fear, was historically inaccurate, and not a solution.

My husband and I are gun owners and hunters. We are neither “pro-gun” nor “anti-gun.” Mr. Brown stated, “A criminal intent on doing harm does not need a firearm to cause mass devastation.” It is true someone can cause destruction with fire, a kitchen knife or a hammer. However, military assault weapons and high-capacity magazines allow for more horrific acts.

We cannot stop all murders, but we can do something to lower the number. No one is talking about confiscating weapons that are reasonable for protection, hunting or collection from law-abiding citizens.

Everyone can agree there is too much violence in America. It is about time government began to address why. Part of the answer, if you look at the research, is the use of guns. Like most laws, there are intelligent rational limits to freedom.

Maureen Acosta, Arvada

This letter was published in the Jan. 27 edition.

Dudley Brown’s article cites a 1939 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment includes the right of a private citizen to own “ ‘any part of the ordinary military equipment’ in use for common defense.”

By 1939, the U.S. Navy already had built and launched six aircraft carriers, including the Enterprise; the Air Force had already deployed the Boeing FB and F2B through XF7B series of fighters. The Manhattan Project began development of the first nuclear bomb in 1942.

I’m curious which of these “ordinary” weapons Brown and the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners believe should be off-limits to those citizens who might be able to afford them.

Scott Lorditch, Evergreen

This letter was published in the Jan. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2]. Follow eLetters[3] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

“I am more worried about “law-abiding” citizens who cross the line and use their gun because they are angry, depressed, mentally ill, inebriated, or use poor judgment as to a perceived threat to their safety, not to mention poor execution of their weapon’s discharge due tolack of training, or due to a stressful situation (like the Aurora theater shooting).”

===

Mr. Lillis offers a frightening case for knee-jerk reaction to what MIGHT happen, what someone MIGHT do, as justification for limiting everyone else. That’s not the strongest avenue for public policy.

I MIGHT drive my card into a crowd, or you MIGHT eat too many Big Macs, or that guy over there MIGHT get sick from someone else’s cigarette smoke. So perfectly reasonable activity — driving down the street, eating lunch, having a smoke — ought to be restricted as a preventive measure? Well, it seems we’re already headed down that path. More’s the pity.

However, the Constitution expressly prohibits the state from exercising prior restraint on individuals participating in their freedoms. It’s only when one man exercising his freedoms infringes on another’s freedom that such limits can and ought to exist — the principle of your right to swing your arm ending at the tip of my nose. And even then, it’s not a preventive measure. And that’s the dangerous line that’s crossed when we seek protection from what one MIGHT do.

#2 Comment By DR On January 26, 2013 @ 6:07 pm

“…there are intelligent rational limits to freedom.”

*facepalm*

Mr. Lorditch, since you were kind enough to mention that the Supreme Court ruled on it, why not just ask them? Or would that debunk your straw-man argument?

#3 Comment By csuengr On January 26, 2013 @ 6:50 pm

Explain to me how an inanimate object (a magazine) can be dangerous? A firearm is also an inanimate object, and therefore cannot be dangerous, or evil, and it is impossible for it to kill a person.

McVeigh killed 168 people with diesel fuel and fertilizer, yet know one called for restrictions on either of those items.

Self reliance and self defense does not automatically mean fuse of firearms. Just remember that police don’t show up till after you are murdered.

#4 Comment By Bruce Baker On January 26, 2013 @ 7:41 pm

I am always fascinated how folks that oppose “assault rifles” and high capacity magazines never say anything about police having these tools. Why is that? If these tools are only meant to kill large numbers of people, why would we give them to police? Police should be capturing people, not killing them.

Perhaps the answer is police, like their Red Coat predecessors, are meant to intimidate “law abiding” citizens. Law enforcement certainly does a very poor job of catching lawbreakers, like stock swindlers, robbers and illegal aliens. However, when if comes to terrifying ordinary people (examples-burning all those people at Waco, accused of illegal weapons, and protecting the murderous West Point Gradulate who used a scoped rifle to head shoot a woman as she held her baby, during Ruby Ridge) law enforcement seems to be adequate for the job.

I think the reason that “law abiding” citizens are extremely upset over “sensible”, “rational” and “common sense” gun proposals, is that they can see how corrupt law enforcement has become. I do not know whether I could find the courage to meet the Lawful Government’s forces at Concord Bridge when they executed their corrupt task of disarming the people, but I would like to know I have the tools that will let me make the choice. I’m Pro-Choice!

#5 Comment By csuengr On January 26, 2013 @ 8:19 pm

But the police are totally trustworthy and their entire existence is to protect us. The police would never do anything stupid.

#6 Comment By peterpi On January 26, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

I think there were calls for restrictions on domestic use of ammonium nitrate.

#7 Comment By mrfxx On January 27, 2013 @ 7:14 am

2 days ago, there was a letter to the editor under “The Second Amendment and gun background checks” which referenced a Supreme Court finding – the letter stated:
“Actually, a 2008 court decision states, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” It continues to expand on this statement. It certainly does not address fees for background checks and who pays for them. You can read it for yourself — District of Columbia vs. Heller. Look it up.”

Anyone who believes in an unlimited right to own guns is either a fool or a tool – or do you really believe that:
a felon who murdered someone WITH A GUN should get a second chance to do that (in some states, regardless of felony, once the sentence has been fully served, the felon can BUY A GUN – read the link (in the sentence about the “exhaustive study”) in “Serious questions on guns for felons” editorial about the “unintended” (or perhaps INTENDED consequences – after all, the more felons with guns, the NRA can convince that they need guns themselves)
or
an insane person who has been diagnosed as a danger to others (like the shooter at Virginia Tech – whose mental health profession decided either that HIPPA or the “right to bear arms” was more important than public safety)
or
a 6 year old CHILD should be given a Glock for Christmas?

If you believe in ANY of the above, I question YOUR sanity in owning a gun!

#8 Comment By Snowco On January 27, 2013 @ 8:38 am

If I don’t need more than 10 rounds to defend myself than why has nearly every police force in America switched from 6 or 7 shot .357 magnum revolvers to 15-17 round 9mm or .40SW? Why have police favored guns with more capacity? If more than ten rounds is not needed then why are these regulations exempting police?

#9 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:15 am

These are all very sensible responses to this “arm everyone” response by the gun advocates. I can “understand” this abandoning any form of gun control legislation with the reality that our society is already over-populated with firearms, including assault weapons and large capacity clips. After Newtown, and the public’s cry to reinstate the assault weapons ban, there was such a run on buy assault weapons like the AR-15 used in the recent mass killings, that the instant background checks are not taking a week or more. Instead of arming themselves against the bad guys with guns, instead the gun owners are out buying those assault weapons before they are banned. So now even the “reasonable” gun owner like Mauree Acosta and her gun-owning husband are saying “enough!” and now arm themselves to defend against the assault weapon/large capacity magazine owners.

The reality of all this still evades the gun owners. . that the difference between someone who will turn their legally-acquired, reasonably-owned firearm against themselves, others, and innocents. ALL of the mass killers acquired their firearms legally, and ALL fell under the category “reasonable gun owners.” But then something in their mind, not clinical insanity, but anger for some personal event changed that reasonableness to a deliberate attack against innocents. Then there are all the cases of gun owners angry at a family member or friend or neighbor using the firearm in some personally-defined act of self-defense, or a child accessing that firearm and accidentally use against a family member or themselves, the collateral damage, the suicides. Paul Lillis is correct, that the gun advocates who suggest everyone arm themselves against the bad people with guns, will not no the difference, aren’t trained or licensed to know the difference, and the potential for collateral damage is huge in what will be a fantasy straight out of the wild west.

#10 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:18 am

. . and you have to have training and be licensed (yearly cost) to drive a car, and their are inherent mandatory warnings on smoking and eating bad food, but no licenses, costs, or warnings on ownership of a firearm. You don’t even have to pay for the background check!

#11 Comment By Dano2 On January 27, 2013 @ 9:21 am

McVeigh killed 168 people with diesel fuel and fertilizer, yet know one called for restrictions on either of those items.

How quickly they forget.

Also, too, ‘tagits’.

Best,

D

#12 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:21 am

There is restrictions. ALL sales of ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer supplement are controlled by Federal law and all sales have to be reported to I assume the ATF.

#13 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:27 am

and how many fuel and fertilizer bomb mass killings have there been since McVeigh vs firearm deaths?
The argument that an inanimate object can not kill someone without a person, is the familiar straw man argument. Nuclear weapons acquire by Iran don’t kill Israelis either, but these inanimate objects were DESIGNED to kill people – massive numbers of people – like large capacity magazines – and all it takes it a person with intent or the lack thereof, to “apply” this inanimate object and it’s design, to take the lives of many innocents.

#14 Comment By jayreadyjay On January 27, 2013 @ 9:31 am

I don’t believe that is true. It’s only sales over 25 pounds that are looked at the the AFT.

#15 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:34 am

Wow! Bruce needs to look under the bed, maybe a commie gov’t official there to take away his guns! Bruce doesn’t want the police to carry assault weapons because he can’t trust them, because they’re not going to Wall Street to arrest all the stock swidlers or going to DC to arrest lawmakers with their assault rifles. He even as at least one example of a law enforcement officer killing a innocent mother – like that’s never happened. But Bruce wants you to ignore all the “reasonable gun owners” who acquired their firearms legally, and for some unknown non-clinical reason, decided to use their firearms to kill others or themselves. I hope no police have to go to Bruce’s house or he’ll meet them at the door with his weaponry. Bruce claims he’s “Pro-Choice” because he feels it’s OK for him to make the choices others can not make, and wants more choices on where he can carry his weaponry. We (the people) would like to take away these choices, because they’re not about what the gov’t wants to do with his body, but what he wants to arm himself with. Sorry, Don Quixiote, keep your wind mills in your mind, and your guns locked up.

#16 Comment By jwndllb On January 27, 2013 @ 9:36 am

I think primafacie is blowing smoke on this one. I would many times rather be faced with one “nut case” carrying, than with thousands of “sane” people all around me carrying who may or may not react “insane” to a theater situation. I think the NRA is overstating and abusing the Second Amendment. People seem to think we live in an anything goes world, where we can interpret existing laws however we want. Believe me, I am no Democrat, but I am with them on this one; more gun laws are needed, and better enforcment of existing laws. The proliferation of guns in our gun crazy society has gon way beyond Second Amendment rights, and I am sick and tired of pro gun crowd hiding behind the 2nd amend.

#17 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:37 am

Ever get the notion at the gunnies all live in fear? Not just of “the government” but the police that protect them from baddies they believe they can defend themselves from. Wish they would just “drop out” of gov’t services including police and fire protection, and leave them to their weaponry to protect them from drunk drivers, fire, etc.

#18 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:46 am

Ever notice how this crazy pro-gun argument goes full circle that now the gunnies are attacking the police for having the weapons they can’t own? None of the firearms the police have carry magazines with capacities beyond which the gun was manufactured. You won’t find a cop with a semi-auto hand gun with a 30-round magazine like which was used in Tucson. You won’t find the police with an AR-15 assault rifle with a 100-round magazine which was used in the Aurora shootings. So to suggest the police are upping their round capacity is misleading – instead they are upping their firepower to match what the NRA and others have allowed to be sold. . . legally.

#19 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:51 am

The “rub” falls on WHO is the “nut case.” All the recent shooters were “responsible gun owners” who acquired their weaponry . . legally. NONE of them were clinically insane when acquiring their weaponry, and I doubt if any would be found to be clinically insane AFTER the carnage. We want to be wannabes and insist they had to be “insane” to kill innocent people, but I don’t believe that’s the clinical definition, and if it were, how do you screen these insane gun owners? Maybe a clinical evaluation for mental health as part of the background check? Good luck getting that passed, because we know how many of the usual suspects would fail this litmus test!

#20 Comment By toohip On January 27, 2013 @ 9:56 am

A friend of mine is primarily in the interstate sales of fertilizers and told me more then ten years ago he has to report sales of large quantities of ammonium nitrate because of the OKC bombing. Don’t know the law or details, but in 2011 the sales of any quantity over 25 lbs are now screen through the terrorist records. [4]

#21 Comment By csuengr On January 27, 2013 @ 10:11 am

No gun was ever designed to kill a person, or other living thing. It’s sole purpose is to launch a projectile in a controlled and predictable manner. The later taking centuries to achieve. Magazines weren’t designed to kill people either. It is actually very hard to kill a person with a magazine. The problem I have with anti-gun people is there total ignorance of the mechanical design and function of a firearm. They tend to believe what they see in movies and TV. This lack of understanding lends itself to anthropomorphism of firearms. 5 rounds, 10, 30, 100, it doesn’t make much difference. By the way, all firearms are military style firearms.

#22 Comment By jayreadyjay On January 27, 2013 @ 10:15 am

The Theater shooting in Denver was a case of one “nut case” carrying and it resulted in 12 deaths and 58 people being injured. And you are saying you want to disarm the law abiding people and can live with the carnage?

And how is the NRA overstating and abusing the Second Amendment. What is over stated with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” with what the NRA is saying?

#23 Comment By csuengr On January 27, 2013 @ 10:17 am

“Gunnies” don’t live in fear. It’s actually the opposite. They know the limitations of the government and aren’t content the leave their safety in the government’s hands. You forget that the police don’t show up till after the crime has taken place. Would you rather try to defend yourself, or wait to be killed, or raped, or kidnapped. or?

#24 Comment By jayreadyjay On January 27, 2013 @ 10:18 am

Are you familiar at all with James Holmes’ history?

#25 Comment By jayreadyjay On January 27, 2013 @ 10:20 am

I’d go after Hollywood and the Motion Picture Industry first. They certainly are a prime mover in numbing people to violence. Oh, wait a minute, they are loved by the liberal left. Never mind.

#26 Comment By csuengr On January 27, 2013 @ 10:23 am

Glock makes 30rd magazines for their model 17, and 18. They were intended for military and police forces. The military uses 100rd magazines for some of there rifles.

#27 Comment By Dano2 On January 27, 2013 @ 10:24 am

Remember: the po-po also are likely in a union. And employed by th’ gummint.

Best,

D

#28 Comment By jayreadyjay On January 27, 2013 @ 10:25 am

Great Joke:

Police office pulls an little old lady over for failing to fully stop at a stop sign. The woman mentions to the officer she is licensed to carry a weapon and has a 45 in her glove compartment and a 38 under her seat. The police officer asks if she has any other fire arms. She says she has a Glock 9 mm in her purse.

The officer smiles and asks, “What are you afraid of?”

The woman responds, “Not a damn thing.”

#29 Comment By csuengr On January 27, 2013 @ 10:28 am

Apparently you forget the shooting in NY last year where five people were shot and one killed. The death was caused by a self inflicted gun shot. The other four people were shot by a police officer.

#30 Comment By csuengr On January 27, 2013 @ 10:33 am

There are lots of warning on owning a firearm. Ever look at an owners manual for one? One also does pay for the background check when they purchase a firearm in Colorado. It’s $10. Operating a car is a privilege. Being able to own a firearm is a right.

#31 Comment By DR On January 27, 2013 @ 11:44 am

I guess the Brady Campaign forgot to mention that the police have a higher rate of collateral damage (shooting an innocent by mistake) than CCW holders. But then, facts were never the anti-gun loons strong suit.

#32 Comment By Old Enough On January 27, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

Good grief! The design purpose really makes absolutely no difference when the gun is used as a tool to kill people by thousands of people every year. The fertilizer wasn’t designed to kill people either before it was used as a tool to kill people and then later controlled.

The anti-gun people are believing more than what they see in movies, they are believing what they saw at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, etc, etc, etc.

Care to actually make a case or would you rather simply make a charge?

While you are cooking on that grill prepare some crow for yourself.

#35 Comment By csuengr On January 27, 2013 @ 1:37 pm

Thousands of people are killed in auto accidents every year, but nobody is considering car control. Thousands are killed with knives. Thousands are killed with other objects that are not guns. But only in gun crimes are the tools blamed.

Did you also know that an “assault weapon” was not used at Newtown.

#36 Comment By Dano2 On January 27, 2013 @ 2:00 pm

Thousands of people are killed in auto accidents every year, but nobody is considering car control.

Srsly? No one is requiring seat belts, headlights, no company looks at crush zones, no one uses crash-test dummies? There are no regulations for bumpers, speed limits, chain control?

Who knew?

Best,,

D

#37 Comment By Dano2 On January 27, 2013 @ 2:09 pm

Did Beck or Rush complain about this last week? Is this why it suddenly has appeared as a “reasoned” or “rational” position?

But never mind trying to game the system. Civil society is having a conversation about what to do about gun violence, despite some people’s liberal use of scare quotes.

Best,

D

#38 Comment By Robtf777 On January 27, 2013 @ 2:28 pm

Criminals have guns.

Thus the choice is yours: Arm yourself from potentially Armed Criminals…..OR…..be an Unarmed Victim……and let the cops draw of chalk-outline around your body whenever they finally get to the location of your murder…….

…………and/or the murder of your spouse, your kids, your parents, etc.

#39 Comment By csuengr On January 27, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

Is the government saying that there are certain automobiles you can’t own? Are they limiting tire size, horsepower, types of engines?

You know, safety stuff. See how long you can drive that car without those devices, and if you have repeated violations how long your license lasts. Are you telling me you are ignorant of the mechanical design and function of safety devices and the requirements for such?

Best,

D

#41 Comment By peterpi On January 27, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

You’re beinbg deliberately obtuse.
Guns are designed to shoot “something”. Oftentimes, living “somethings”
Owners boast of a gun’s stopping power. They aren’t talking about stopping an avalanche or a falling boulder.

#42 Comment By peterpi On January 27, 2013 @ 5:59 pm

Yes.
There are any number of cars that are not “street legal” in the United States.

The Smart Car is a fairly tame car. But it was illegal to drive it on the street until it met certain pollution and safety standards.

#43 Comment By peterpi On January 27, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

A nuclear device is just an inanimate mass of plutonium, beryllium, certain volatile chemicals, electronics, and a metal casing. It just sits there. It’s a shame and against our rights that responsible, law-abiding Americans are denied by our tyrannical government from owning one if we deem we need it for our self-defense against that same tyrannical government. Newer designs are easily carried, so they fall under “bearing” arms.
Explain to me how an inanimate object like a nuclear weapon can be dangerous? It is inanimate, and therefore cannot be dangerous, or evil, and it is impossible for it to kill a person. and therefore harms no one.
Your move, csuengr.

#44 Comment By Dano2 On January 27, 2013 @ 8:24 pm

For that matter, a waterboard is simply an inanimate collection of atoms, and you’ll die without water, silly goose! The rack – so loved during the Inquisition – heck, that’s just some wood – you gonna ban wood, huh? Thin bamboo shoots? Golly, you can pick your teeth with those!

Best,

D

#45 Comment By Saxxon On January 27, 2013 @ 9:28 pm

To sum it up in answer to the question:
“Is self-defense the answer to gun violence?”
Absolutely.

The victim knows who the perp is. Police will almost never be able to respond in time to stop most attacks. When they do, they have a 5 to 1 higher chance of shooting the wrong person since they don’t know who the players are on arrival. Victim or other armed person can respond to a shooter within seconds, police response will be in minutes.

This produces some telling statistics. Armed citizens stopping a mass shooting incident the average casualties are between 2-3 killed; if police stop the shooting it is over 14 killed. Chance of armed citizen shooting wrong person is 2-3% (they know who the perp is); with police arriving on scene they shoot the wrong person 11% of the time. With the Empire State building incident NYPD likely drove that statistic up a lot this last year by shooting 9 bystanders in 16 shots fired at a perp jsut 20 feet away.

#46 Comment By Saxxon On January 27, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

Ignorance has spoken.

Most truly high capacity magazines are unreliable aftermarket devices. Only a handful are made that truly work. Holmes gun jammed using one in Aurora, the Clakamas Mall shooter in Oregon had his gun jam and soon after committed suicide when confronted by a CCW holder with his weapon.

The stock capacity for most semiauto handguns is between 7-18 rounds dependong on make and caliber. Generally they will feed reliably with the factory magazeins but performance is rarely as good with any other aftermarket product.
Similarly .223/5.56xx45mm are designed for 20 or 30 round magazines, .308/7.62x51mm are normally 20 round magazines. Almost every product designed for hold more those those firearms is prone to malfunction. The only exceptions I know of are very expensive (ie the 100 round drum for .223 that works is over $600).

But just as police cite a need for such capacity, so does a homeowner faced with a rioting mob on their street need the firepower to drive off the attackers before their home and occupants are torched, raped or killed.

#47 Comment By jwndllb On January 28, 2013 @ 6:55 am

New gun laws will be passed and you will have to live with it. Even the Supreme Court doesn’t see the 2nd amend as unfettered right. I’d say the loon is whoever feels they have the “right” to bear the most and deadliest weapons they can get.

#48 Comment By jayreadyjay On January 28, 2013 @ 7:53 am

So how much has gun violence grown in the past 10 years? If you want to have a conversation about guns, don’t you think we should look at the facts? Or do those facts not support your hysteria?

#49 Comment By toohip On January 28, 2013 @ 8:38 am

Can you show me the vast variety (not just one) police depts who use 30 round pistol magazines? And the military example of an M16 or M4 using a 100 round magazine? Again, most of this is all in your mind. Large capacity magazines are not only prone to jam as what happened to the Aurora shooter, but they just are too bulky and not suitable for police and the military. The military already has large capacity magazines for their weapons we call “machine guns.” Semi auto rifles weren’t designed to handle these large capacity magazines. The large capacity magazines were developed by gun manufacturers to meet the gunnie’s request to have bigger, military-style weaponry to account for the inadequate size of a part of their anatomy.

#50 Comment By toohip On January 28, 2013 @ 8:41 am

It’s all about physics. You need a mechanical force, aka “spring” to force-feed the rounds into the firearm receiver. Physics limits how much force can be made from one spring and limits the “effective” number of rounds. Otherwise military rifles would have a virtually unlimited number of rounds to serve the battlefield soldier. These military gun manufacturers know what works effectively and can’t afford the battlefield soldier to have an assault rifle or hand gun jam putting the soldier at risk. But the public will be given what ever it’s willing to pay for.

#51 Comment By toohip On January 28, 2013 @ 8:48 am

I’m sure you have read more than I, but do you know the difference between fact and fiction? The fact that CU accepted Holmes as a PhD candidate in Neuroscience, I think speaks more for Holme’s sanity and intelligence, then what his university psychiatrist discovered -albeit much too late. The Newtown shooter was diagnosed as “mildly autistic” – a medical condition that typically is not violent. The VT shooter, the McDonald’s shooter, . . most of the mass shooters were not clinically insane and seemed “normal” to the average person – why they were allowed to acquire their weaponry . . “legally,” and be classified “reasonable gun owners.”

THIS is probably the biggest uncontrollable issue – the ability of a gun owner or a person who can acquire weaponry legally – and plan or impulsively act out and kill massive numbers of people. We’re not even addressing the person who commits suicide, kills a family member or friend or two. It takes massive number of victims for the media to even publish the story and the national media to pick up on it. But even massive number of people got “boring” for the press, then we had to have true “innocents”. . 20 six-year olds to be riddled with bullets before we FINALLY started to think maybe all this military-style and excessive weaponry might be going too far.

#52 Comment By toohip On January 28, 2013 @ 8:50 am

Oh, that’s your best shot? Read the manual and that should prevent violence with a hand gun. What does it say there. . “don’t use while in the shower?” If a background check only costs $10, can you imagine what kind of deep “background” or investigation is used? Only if they are on the list of convicted felons. A loan background check is much more detailed than this, and I know loans don’t kill people – people do, but ot many people killed by loans!

#53 Comment By toohip On January 28, 2013 @ 8:57 am

OMG! Are you serious?! You’ve not resorted to the desperate suggestion that guns were designed to simply “launch a projectile?” And you use the classic “talk down” attitude that “anti-gun” people are totally ignorant on guns. Listen csuengr, I’ll be I fired a gun before you were born, probably more times than you have, can out shoot you (qualified Marine Corps “Sharpshooter”), and probably. . know more about guns then you do. So stop the “you wouldn’t understand because you don’t know guns” argument – it doesn’t work. Just because guns are a “religion” to you, it still comes down to a “belief” not a science. The number of rounds make all the difference. Ask the Tucson shooter with the 30 round clip who killed and wounded many but was only stopped when he FIRST stopped to reload another magazine by a couple senior citizen’s nearby. Had he a 100 round AR-15, he would of killed more. THAT”S the argument of the smaller, limited round standard magazines – you don’t need it for hunting or home-defense – but it’s handy if you want to kill large quantities of people.

#54 Comment By toohip On January 28, 2013 @ 8:59 am

Your arguments “FOR” gun control are tired and weak. They’ve been used before – except the “to launch a projectile design” defense! – and each one is a myth and not true. Reality and facts are never on the side of conservatives, as ironically the gunnies. . who the extreme gunnies, always seem to be conservatives. Coincidence?

#55 Comment By Fowler On January 29, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

I don’t understand how the Left can support gun control. We know that Climate Change means our world will be facing droughts, floods, rising sea levels, melting arctic sea ice, increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, famines and huge forest fires. The science is settled. Our dysfunctional government has been sold to the 1% and will never do anything to prevent this. Our social infrastructure is so underfunded and neglected that just one of these catastrophies will be enough to bring down the grid and our essential social support systems. On the political front we know George Bush stole the 2000 election, lied to get us into two illegal wars, used torture to achieve his ends, shredded the Constitution with the Patriot Act. Obama has only continued the pattern with his illegal drone strikes and extra-judicial assassination of American citizens and the perpetuation of the Gulag at Gitmo. With so many looming crises on the horizon, the police, firefighters and National Guard will be overwhelmed, there will be riots in the street and roving mobs just like Katrina. Just wait until the electricity goes off, the refrigerators go down, and the 3 day super market food supply disappears. Under these circumstances, you better be well armed because you’ll be on your own and the state won’t be able to help you. The police and the military will be defending the elites who funded Citizens United. If you believe the Left, that’s the very least that will be coming. It’s not about defending yourself against the government. When the system collapses there won’t be any government to worry about.

#56 Comment By jayreadyjay On January 30, 2013 @ 6:15 am

It must be really miserable to be a liberal.

You just want to do good, but life and the planet are against you. Studies have shown that liberals are less happy than conservative. Reading your list of liberal beliefs it’s not surprising liberals favor abortion. What is surprising is there aren’t more suicides on the left.